MagBlog

Thursday, November 12, 2009

How to make money with an online magazine

The following block quote is taken from a comment on the piece Cory Doctorow wrote for Technology Guardian, about Rupert Murdoch's plans to block online access to his newspapers (sorry, the newspapers he has some vague connection with that are run according to the whims of their editors and over which he has no influence). chrsoz, the comment's author, addresses a number of points that Murdoch seems to have overlooked, then adds:

And none of this starts to touch on the fact that most traditional media co web sites are dull one-dimensional experiences (article + advertising - any decent community engagement (inc useless closed comment systems, ahem) = yawn), that really just mimic the newspaper in an online environment, without bringing any significant additional value to the party. So unless Rupe (and others) sorts this rather fundamental issue out then he's doomed anyway (if managing the digital business transition doesn't kill them first; maybe ereaders will save the day). Better get good at creating compelling and valuable consumer internet experiences, and not just being all about publishing articles online (otherwise they'll just get displaced by a new generation of way more innovative media companies who can fuse content + community + services + utility + monetisation).

I have written about magazines and newspapers simply reproducing their print content online (see Writing for Journalists, over to the right) rather than creating digitally native material, but chrsoz summarises the principle behind successful online publishing beautifully in his last sentence:

content + community + services + utility + monetisation

Next time I give my "launching a magazine" lecture, I shall make sure to use this simple-looking formula. Of course achieving it is not simple at all ... and therefore it could make the basis for another book. Thanks indeed chrsoz.

chrsoz's Guardian user profile

Baron von Tollbooth: Murdoch, Google and money

Cory Doctorow's article in today's Technology Guardian is a lovely piece of writing, even though it's about a newspaper proprietor whose company gave up trying to publish magazines after realising they just couldn't hack it.

It's all speculation and opinion, of course, just adding to the virtual Niagara of comment about Rupert Murdoch's various pronouncements on paywalls, denying search and the legality (or not) of "fair use".

But there is one paragraph that has a definite ring of truth about it:

Rupert isn't a technophobic loon who will send his media empire to the bottom of the ocean while waging war on search engines. Instead, he's an out-of-touch moustache-twirler who's set his sights on remaking the web as a toll booth (with him in the collector's seat), and his plan hinges on a touchingly naive approach to geopolitics.

The idea of being a toll collector must be appealing to a businessman who staked his empire on being able to collect tolls (Sky).

UPDATE FROM THE COMMENTS ON DOCTOROW'S ARTICLE: DEFINITE MAGAZINE APPLICATION

And none of this starts to touch on the fact that most traditional media co web sites are dull one-dimensional experiences (article + advertising - any decent community engagement (inc useless closed comment systems, ahem) = yawn), that really just mimic the newspaper in an online environment, without bringing any significant additional value to the party. So unless Rupe (and others) sorts this rather fundamental issue out then he's doomed anyway (if managing the digital business transition doesn't kill them first; maybe ereaders will save the day). Better get good at creating compelling and valuable consumer internet experiences, and not just being all about publishing articles online (otherwise they'll just get displaced by a new generation of way more innovative media companies who can fuse content + community + services + utility + monetisation).

Thursday, October 22, 2009

To the Magazine Academy last night, where our two course magazines (Substance and Made) were shortlisted and one given a special commendation. Both should have won, of course, and the class representatives (hi Esther, Jess, Hannah, Sarah) have every right to be as proud of their work as I am.

The magazine that won (CheapSkate: congratulations Goldsmiths) encapsulated a cute idea and was nicely realised, but it didn't convince me as a real-life project – there's probably only room for once Vice-like successful freebie. Neither did the magazine entitled Wild that attracted special guest Felix Dennis so much that he offered to print a special one-off to be given away with Bizarre. It seemed to be the coverline about the World Farting Championship that attracted him.

Anyhow, Sarah had the nous to pitch Substance to Felix Dennis during the evening, only to be told there would be no advertising, and therefore no wages. I don't know what the pitch was but there's a case for saying Substance is The Week for a younger, hipper readership – and we all know how much Felix loves The Week in all its many international editions. Furthermore, if Substance attracted a decent and defined readership, the advertisers would follow.

On the long train journey home I fell to thinking about why we make these magazines, and it's certainly not to win prizes. Watching an idea develop from a tentative pitch to the class to a confident, polished final edition, complete with extensive website, via an unbelieveable amount of hard work and ruthless (constructive) criticism is the reward. Feeling the buzz as it all comes together and watching the sheer amount of learning is actually fun (for me, and I hope for all concerned); serious fun.

Surely that's why we work in or with magazines. Yes, there has to be money to pay the bills in real life, yes it's lovely to have all that hard work recognised with an award, but above all that it should be fun. If it's not ... do something else.

Related

“How would you know what’s going to happen in the magazine business?” said Mr. Wallace. “You would look at its vital statistics. You would look at its sources of income from consumers, and from advertisers. And you would look at where you’re finding your circulation. We have no problem with circulation for print magazines.

“We have what we believe is a short-term problem with advertising revenue,” he continued. “That problem seems to be improving. How long will there be print magazines? I don’t know. But for as long as there will be, Condé Nast is well positioned.”

From an insightful story about Conde Nast in the New York Observer.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Magazines score marginally better than newspapers

The good news for print magazines in Targetcast tcm's latest survey can be summed up in this short extract:

60% of consumers say newspapers need to change the most to stay relevant, compared to 30% for magazines and nearly 20% for radio.

Then there's this mixed news:

A solid 57% say they prefer the experience of reading a printed magazine over reading a magazine on the Internet. An even stronger 71% would not be willing to pay for an online magazine subscription to replace their printed magazine subscription. Also, only 15% of respondents overall agree that they'd rather read magazines online. Additionally, printed magazines score well in terms of ad attentiveness and purchase influence.

Which goes to prove magblog's insistence that haptics is a very important consideration for print magazines.

Find a proper summary, with tables and everything at mediapost.com

iPhone app for magazine publishers

Here's a useful post for magazine publishers thinking about developing an app for the iPhone: McSweeney's, the magazine and book organisation founded by Dave "Extraordinary Genius" Eggers has launched one with some interesting and potentially profitable features.

(Of course the author considers it in the light of possible newspaper usage, but what's new ... magazines show the way again.)

http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/10/what-lit-mag-mcsweeneys-could-teach-news-orgs-about-the-iphone/

Friday, October 16, 2009

Is journalism a meta-brand?

Nick Brett, the man in charge of BBC magazines, came to talk to Cardiff School of Journalism students this morning. He gave a great, thoughtful, thought-provoking presentation about the bright future that magazines can still have, provided we are all prepared to adapt.

In the Q&A that followed someone asked whether would-be journalists should now attach themselves to a brand rather than a platform (ie newspaper, magazine, television, radio). I had never heard this question asked before and the very fact that it was asked indicates a change in the mindset of the people who will be our future journalists. (Yes, I realise that extrapolating this from a single question is quite extreme, but read on.)

Students who apply to our postgraduate courses in journalism have to specify a strand (newspaper, magazine, broadcast) and to date most of them have no problem with this because they seem to come with a very conventional, and perhaps not very well informed, view of what journalism is and how it works. The newspaper applicants want to be published in print, the magazine applicants want to get long stories about their interests printed and so on. In short, applicants come with quite a conservative outlook.

But perhaps that single question indicates a change, the t of a tipping point. The fact is that if you are a newspaper journalist you will be expected to write stories for print, for a multitude of online services, you may have to create a podcast and, on the Daily Telegraph, you should be prepared to contribute to the video output. The brand you are working for demands this versatility.

This also leads on to questions about journalists and personal brands – Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com is a good case in point (as well as being a Cardiff postgraduate alumnus). Robert Peston (sample quote: “the traditional distinctions between television journalists, radio journalists and print journalists are quite close to being obsolete”) might also fall into this category, but it works at a much less elevated level too. The young journalists on our courses are all expected to run their own blogs and encouraged to explore all manner of Web 2.0 technologies. When it comes to getting a job, such activity can have a very positive effect on their personal brand, and its absence can also have a negative effect.

So perhaps the meta-brand in this instance is "journalist": all the things we have regarded as extras are now part of the landscape, a simple given. However much we yearn for a past of typewriters and hot metal we're all part of a bigger brand now.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

B2B: No necessary intrinsic value

B2B publisher considers the value of information online. His conclusion? It all depends on how valuable the reader thinks it is. This conclusion may fall into the NSS category but it's interesting that someone inside the industry is saying it. (As reported in Press Gazette)

My conclusion? Everyone is going to have to work harder at digging out stories that the readers find valuable and getting ... what's that word? ... ah yes, scoops.

Hey – maybe this online thing could be good for journalism!

Thursday, August 27, 2009

The Economist as a Collective

It could be like The Borg, it could be like an anarcho-syndicate but it's not.

The Economist has an astonishing track record of success and in an interview on mediabistro.com the magazine's Matthew Bishop (New York Bureau Chief) gives some insight into how it works. For example, on the no-byline policy:

Because we don't have our name on the article, we all stand and fall by all of the content.
This changes completely the internal dynamics. When you think about the extent to which debate is what we do, the other part of that is that we all stand together as a collective as to all the material that appears. Which means we are much more consistently high quality. Having this group of people here, and having this long record of debating, means we see things going on differently then our competitors. It's not just one individual, it's a group narrative. If you put bylines on it, it will make much harder to maintain that.

Read the whole thing at http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/interviews/interview_matthew_bishop_new_york_bureau_chief_the_economist_124705.asp

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Posh magazines get the once over from posh consultants

The Condé Nast building seen from Empire State building. Image via Wikipedia

The New York Observer has a bit of a laugh over McKinsey's scrutiny of Conde Nast. Given CN's stereotyping, the humour is only to be expected, but let's face it, if all magazines were as beautifully made as Vogue, GQ, Wired, etc, the newsstands would be much more pleasant to look at.

However, with ads pages down drastically, the flower and limo budgets may need to be trimmed.

"When the Publishers Information Bureau gets its hands on the total numbers, this is what the percentages will look like:

Allure: down 51 percent
Arch Digest: down 44 percent
Bon Appetit: down 40 percent
Bride’s (Sept/Oct): down 19 percent
Traveler: down 44 percent
Cookie: down 19 percent
Details: down 34 percent
Glamour: down 41 percent
Golf Digest: up 0.2 percent
Gourmet: down 51 percent
GQ: down 31 percent
Lucky: down 36 percent
Self: down 50 percent
Teen Vogue: down 31 percent
Vanity Fair: down 36 percent
Vogue: down 36 percent
W: down 53 percent
Wired: down 41 percent"

Readers Digest USA: private equity lets the deal go down

Did you follow the takeover of Readers Digest by a US private equity firm a couple of years back? Here are a couple of experts opining on the wisdom of that investment (with the benefit of hindsight). According to Jim Cramer (second video) not only is the magazine business kaput, no media stock is worth investing in at the moment.